| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
jampa17 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
 Posted: August 10 2010 at 16:22 |
 Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^^ "religion is false" ... that's not a statement that I would support, and neither is "atheism is true".
The difference between Theism and Deism is that Theism makes claims about the natural world. Theists are not only saying that there is a God in the supernatural sense, which by definition is an unfalsifiable claim, they are saying that not only this God interacts with the natural world, but also that they know how he does that, and what he wants us to do. That makes their position vulnerable to logical arguments. Their way of evading this problem is usually simple ignoring the arguments, or - over the course of centuries - slowly changing their position and moving it into the supernatural realm, until it essentially becomes Deism.
One direct example is early Christianity: Jesus' followers were expecting a new kingdom, as predicted by Jesus (he appointed 12 apostles because there were twelve tribes, and each apostle would reign over a tribe in this new kingdom). Then Jesus died, eventually the apostles died, and Christians had to change their interpretation of this new kingdom. Eventually they moved it into the afterlife, and thus completely into the supernatural realm. An ingenious idea IMO, since that meant that people did not have to make up excuses anymore for why the predicted kingdom never arrived. They started out with a concrete claim about the physical world and ended up with a claim that's entirely supernatural. It's the same with the question of whether Jesus was human or a divine entity: In the end they simply said that he was both at the same time - issue solved.
IMO it's things like this which make it obvious that Christianity was a flawed concept to begin with. I also think that all these inconsistencies and oddities about the tenets of Christianity can serve as pretty conclusive historical evidence with the obvious conclusion that the whole thing is highly likely to be as false as all the other religions we all, Atheists and religious people alike, today accept to be false. Theists who disagree have not yet managed to explain to me how they can get around those universally agreed upon problems, short of simply ignoring them.
|
I know you are discussing this with Dean... but I couldn't read this without answering. You act like one of those apostles Mike, because, yes, They thought Jesus was refering to a physical kingdom, that's why people abandoned him in the Cross, the big difference is that they get after that he was refering to something different when he made the resurrection. That's not how you are saying, because if that was how it worked, then Christianity would last you know, 3 years and then everything would be history. But know, because the apostles saw him and believe in him... you can find that in the New Testament, the change in their thoughts after the resurrection. But you can't understand that. You are hardly trying to find contradictions just because you don't have nothing to believe in...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
 |
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: August 10 2010 at 16:31 |
Textbook wrote:
I'm prepared to accept that you can't use science to disprove religion because a religious mind is not a scientific one however much they might argue with that.
In fact I'm almost prepared to go a step further and say you cannot even use logic to disprove religion because a religious mind is not a logical one. I may be siding with Maher in suggesting they have a type of mental illness. They are rejecting the evidence of their own experience in favour of phantasms. They need treatment, not logical arguments. |
Did you watch the video about Maher that I posted earlier? He's assuming a position towards the germ theory of disease that's not unlike the position of a Creationist towards Evolution. As pointed out by TheAmazingAtheist in another video he posted a few hours ago, and also by myself a few pages ago here: None of us are 100% rational ... none of us are immune from circular logic, prejudice, confirmation bias etc.. I think what's happening is simply a case of backing yourself into a corner and then building up increasingly irrational defenses and justifications for your own position.
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: August 10 2010 at 16:35 |
Mike... I have just seen your video and it's reaaaaally stupid. I don't know how in the hell you could believe a guy who tries to be funny-ironic and pretending to teach somebody in that way. And if that are you arguments, you know, guys saying "Oh, you know that not all the letters of Paul are not in the Bible?  Did you know that Luke wasn't hearing the word of the Almighty but summoning another books? " it's really really stupid and I suggest you to go and talk to a priest, at least they have being studiing more than 10 years the gospels and another scriptures rather to buy books who can't convince or argue with a good Christian, you know why? because hearing his arguments, I almost laugh at him, because any good Catholic could argue each thing that he said and it's not that smart, Mike... I thought you believe in more cualified figures... but well, who am I at the end, just a good Christian who happens to do his homework good...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: August 10 2010 at 16:39 |
jampa17 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^^ "religion is false" ... that's not a statement that I would support, and neither is "atheism is true".
The difference between Theism and Deism is that Theism makes claims about the natural world. Theists are not only saying that there is a God in the supernatural sense, which by definition is an unfalsifiable claim, they are saying that not only this God interacts with the natural world, but also that they know how he does that, and what he wants us to do. That makes their position vulnerable to logical arguments. Their way of evading this problem is usually simple ignoring the arguments, or - over the course of centuries - slowly changing their position and moving it into the supernatural realm, until it essentially becomes Deism.
One direct example is early Christianity: Jesus' followers were expecting a new kingdom, as predicted by Jesus (he appointed 12 apostles because there were twelve tribes, and each apostle would reign over a tribe in this new kingdom). Then Jesus died, eventually the apostles died, and Christians had to change their interpretation of this new kingdom. Eventually they moved it into the afterlife, and thus completely into the supernatural realm. An ingenious idea IMO, since that meant that people did not have to make up excuses anymore for why the predicted kingdom never arrived. They started out with a concrete claim about the physical world and ended up with a claim that's entirely supernatural. It's the same with the question of whether Jesus was human or a divine entity: In the end they simply said that he was both at the same time - issue solved.
IMO it's things like this which make it obvious that Christianity was a flawed concept to begin with. I also think that all these inconsistencies and oddities about the tenets of Christianity can serve as pretty conclusive historical evidence with the obvious conclusion that the whole thing is highly likely to be as false as all the other religions we all, Atheists and religious people alike, today accept to be false. Theists who disagree have not yet managed to explain to me how they can get around those universally agreed upon problems, short of simply ignoring them.
|
I know you are discussing this with Dean... but I couldn't read this without answering. You act like one of those apostles Mike, because, yes, They thought Jesus was refering to a physical kingdom, that's why people abandoned him in the Cross, the big difference is that they get after that he was refering to something different when he made the resurrection. That's not how you are saying, because if that was how it worked, then Christianity would last you know, 3 years and then everything would be history. But know, because the apostles saw him and believe in him... you can find that in the New Testament, the change in their thoughts after the resurrection. But you can't understand that. You are hardly trying to find contradictions just because you don't have nothing to believe in... |
It seems like you don't know much about early Christianity. Have you even heard of Marcion, the Ebionites, Gnostics etc.? For all we know the apostles/disciples died waiting for the kingdom to arrive, then decades later the books of the new testament were written, and it took several centuries of discussions and reformations after that until they could even agree on which of the numerous books that were in circulation to include in the new testament. Your last sentence is interesting though. I'd like to point out that I'm not really trying hard to find contradictions in the Bible. In fact they're quite easy to find and - as I've already said - not disputed among biblical scholars. Please, go and read some Catholic books on the subject, if you don't take my word for it.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: August 10 2010 at 16:42 |
jampa17 wrote:
Mike... I have just seen your video and it's reaaaaally stupid. I don't know how in the hell you could believe a guy who tries to be funny-ironic and pretending to teach somebody in that way. And if that are you arguments, you know, guys saying "Oh, you know that not all the letters of Paul are not in the Bible? Did you know that Luke wasn't hearing the word of the Almighty but summoning another books? " it's really really stupid and I suggest you to go and talk to a priest, at least they have being studiing more than 10 years the gospels and another scriptures rather to buy books who can't convince or argue with a good Christian, you know why? because hearing his arguments, I almost laugh at him, because any good Catholic could argue each thing that he said and it's not that smart, Mike... I thought you believe in more cualified figures... but well, who am I at the end, just a good Christian who happens to do his homework good... |
I suggest that *you* go and do some studying. KingHeathen gets most of the arguments from the video from Bart Ehrman: " He was the President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature, and worked closely as an editor on a number of the Society's publications. Currently, he co-edits the series New Testament Tools and Studies.
Much of Ehrman's writing has concentrated on various aspects of Walter Bauer's
thesis that Christianity was always diversified or at odds with itself.
Ehrman is often considered a pioneer in connecting the history of the
early church to textual variants within biblical manuscripts and in
coining such terms as "Proto-orthodox Christianity."[2] In his writings, Ehrman has turned around textual criticism. From the time of the Church Fathers, it was those denounced as heretics (Marcion, for example) who were charged with tampering with the biblical manuscripts. Ehrman theorizes that it was more often the orthodox that "corrupted" the manuscripts, altering the text to promote particular viewpoints.
Ehrman became an Evangelical Christian
as a teen. His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led
him to the study of ancient languages and to textual criticism, to
which he attributes the inspiration for an ongoing critical exploration
of the basis of his own religious beliefs, which in turn gradually led
to the questioning of his faith in the Bible as the inerrant, unchanging
word of God. He now considers himself an agnostic.[3][4] Nevertheless, Ehrman has kept ongoing dialogue with evangelicals. In March 2006, he joined theologian William Lane Craig in public debate on the question "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?" on the campus of the College of the Holy Cross.[5] In April 2008, Ehrman and evangelical New Testament scholar Daniel B. Wallace participated in a public dialogue on the textual reliability of the New Testament.[6]
In January 2009, Dr. Ehrman debated Dr. James White, Director of Alpha
and Omega Ministries, an Evangelical Reformed Baptist scholar on "Did
the Bible Mis-Quote Jesus?"
He has authored or contributed to more than twenty books. In 2006 and 2009 he appeared on The Colbert Report, as well as The Daily Show, to promote his books Misquoting Jesus, and Jesus, Interrupted (respectively).
In 2007, he gave a speech at Stanford University
in which he discussed the textual inconsistencies of the New Testament,
and also took questions from the audience. He regularly conducts
similar sessions through the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill's Adventures in Ideas seminars. He has also made several guest appearances on National Public Radio (NPR) including the show Fresh Air in February 2008 to discuss his book God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question-Why We Suffer and in March 2009 to discuss his book Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them).
Professional awards received include the Students' Undergraduate
Teaching Award, The Ruth and Philip Hettleman Prize for Artistic and
Scholarly Achievement, and The Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for
Excellence in Teaching."
But of course you *know* that neither King Heathen, Bart Ehrman or I have anything intelligent to say.
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: August 10 2010 at 16:50 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^^ "religion is false" ... that's not a statement that I would support, and neither is "atheism is true".
The difference between Theism and Deism is that Theism makes claims about the natural world. Theists are not only saying that there is a God in the supernatural sense, which by definition is an unfalsifiable claim, they are saying that not only this God interacts with the natural world, but also that they know how he does that, and what he wants us to do. That makes their position vulnerable to logical arguments. Their way of evading this problem is usually simple ignoring the arguments, or - over the course of centuries - slowly changing their position and moving it into the supernatural realm, until it essentially becomes Deism.
One direct example is early Christianity: Jesus' followers were expecting a new kingdom, as predicted by Jesus (he appointed 12 apostles because there were twelve tribes, and each apostle would reign over a tribe in this new kingdom). Then Jesus died, eventually the apostles died, and Christians had to change their interpretation of this new kingdom. Eventually they moved it into the afterlife, and thus completely into the supernatural realm. An ingenious idea IMO, since that meant that people did not have to make up excuses anymore for why the predicted kingdom never arrived. They started out with a concrete claim about the physical world and ended up with a claim that's entirely supernatural. It's the same with the question of whether Jesus was human or a divine entity: In the end they simply said that he was both at the same time - issue solved.
IMO it's things like this which make it obvious that Christianity was a flawed concept to begin with. I also think that all these inconsistencies and oddities about the tenets of Christianity can serve as pretty conclusive historical evidence with the obvious conclusion that the whole thing is highly likely to be as false as all the other religions we all, Atheists and religious people alike, today accept to be false. Theists who disagree have not yet managed to explain to me how they can get around those universally agreed upon problems, short of simply ignoring them.
|
I know you are discussing this with Dean... but I couldn't read this without answering. You act like one of those apostles Mike, because, yes, They thought Jesus was refering to a physical kingdom, that's why people abandoned him in the Cross, the big difference is that they get after that he was refering to something different when he made the resurrection. That's not how you are saying, because if that was how it worked, then Christianity would last you know, 3 years and then everything would be history. But know, because the apostles saw him and believe in him... you can find that in the New Testament, the change in their thoughts after the resurrection. But you can't understand that. You are hardly trying to find contradictions just because you don't have nothing to believe in... |
It seems like you don't know much about early Christianity. Have you even heard of Marcion, the Ebionites, Gnostics etc.? For all we know the apostles/disciples died waiting for the kingdom to arrive, then decades later the books of the new testament were written, and it took several centuries of discussions and reformations after that until they could even agree on which of the numerous books that were in circulation to include in the new testament.
Your last sentence is interesting though. I'd like to point out that I'm not really trying hard to find contradictions in the Bible. In fact they're quite easy to find and - as I've already said - not disputed among biblical scholars. Please, go and read some Catholic books on the subject, if you don't take my word for it.
|
Come on Mike, you can't make the fool with me. You know that I have read gnostic gospel, or scriptures and I have studiing many of those issues and that you can't bought me with that. I don't know about early Christianity then? hmmm... Did you know that the gospels were written ACCORDING to the Apostles. It was ACCORDING to them because they teach someone else (that actually knows how to write) to make those scriptures? You know that most of the gnostic tales are more fantasy tales, you know, like everywhere in history, fake stories that were told from one generation to another and somewhere in the middle were handed down to words. That's why it takes so long, because during those days, the different Christian communities were too far and they didn't have, like the guy on the video said: Internet, they don't even have phones, or telegraph? That's why the letters of the authorities, those who recieved the teaching of the apostles directly, sended to them and you can find many letters adressing missinterpretations of the word of Jesus and fake ideas, the archives are there and you can search for them. When Christianity became that big and official in the Roman Empire, then it was needed a clean up of all this made up ideas and that's when the authorities, again, faithful to the core of the teaching choose, after and intense search through the scriptures, the more according to the faith.
There is plenty information about it Mike, is not that you with your simplistic answer will take me down...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Proletariat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
|
Posted: August 10 2010 at 16:50 |
so im assuming its not settled? 
|
|
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: August 10 2010 at 16:54 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
Mike... I have just seen your video and it's reaaaaally stupid. I don't know how in the hell you could believe a guy who tries to be funny-ironic and pretending to teach somebody in that way. And if that are you arguments, you know, guys saying "Oh, you know that not all the letters of Paul are not in the Bible? Did you know that Luke wasn't hearing the word of the Almighty but summoning another books? " it's really really stupid and I suggest you to go and talk to a priest, at least they have being studiing more than 10 years the gospels and another scriptures rather to buy books who can't convince or argue with a good Christian, you know why? because hearing his arguments, I almost laugh at him, because any good Catholic could argue each thing that he said and it's not that smart, Mike... I thought you believe in more cualified figures... but well, who am I at the end, just a good Christian who happens to do his homework good... |
I suggest that *you* go and do some studying. KingHeathen gets most of the arguments from the video from Bart Ehrman:
"
He was the President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature, and worked closely as an editor on a number of the Society's publications. Currently, he co-edits the series New Testament Tools and Studies.
Much of Ehrman's writing has concentrated on various aspects of Walter Bauer's thesis that Christianity was always diversified or at odds with itself. Ehrman is often considered a pioneer in connecting the history of the early church to textual variants within biblical manuscripts and in coining such terms as "Proto-orthodox Christianity."[2] In his writings, Ehrman has turned around textual criticism. From the time of the Church Fathers, it was those denounced as heretics (Marcion, for example) who were charged with tampering with the biblical manuscripts. Ehrman theorizes that it was more often the orthodox that "corrupted" the manuscripts, altering the text to promote particular viewpoints.
Ehrman became an Evangelical Christian as a teen. His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages and to textual criticism, to which he attributes the inspiration for an ongoing critical exploration of the basis of his own religious beliefs, which in turn gradually led to the questioning of his faith in the Bible as the inerrant, unchanging word of God. He now considers himself an agnostic.[3][4] Nevertheless, Ehrman has kept ongoing dialogue with evangelicals. In March 2006, he joined theologian William Lane Craig in public debate on the question "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?" on the campus of the College of the Holy Cross.[5] In April 2008, Ehrman and evangelical New Testament scholar Daniel B. Wallace participated in a public dialogue on the textual reliability of the New Testament.[6] In January 2009, Dr. Ehrman debated Dr. James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, an Evangelical Reformed Baptist scholar on "Did the Bible Mis-Quote Jesus?"
He has authored or contributed to more than twenty books. In 2006 and 2009 he appeared on The Colbert Report, as well as The Daily Show, to promote his books Misquoting Jesus, and Jesus, Interrupted (respectively).
In 2007, he gave a speech at Stanford University in which he discussed the textual inconsistencies of the New Testament, and also took questions from the audience. He regularly conducts similar sessions through the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Adventures in Ideas seminars. He has also made several guest appearances on National Public Radio (NPR) including the show Fresh Air in February 2008 to discuss his book God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question-Why We Suffer and in March 2009 to discuss his book Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them).
Professional awards received include the Students' Undergraduate Teaching Award, The Ruth and Philip Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and The Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for Excellence in Teaching."
But of course you *know* that neither King Heathen, Bart Ehrman or I have anything intelligent to say.
|
Then why his video was completely argueable by an average Christian? all that prices and "success" and he can even shake the ground of my believes...? ask any christian to watch that video and see if that 9 minutes of wisdom make a difference in their believings... Mike, I expected that an average american could believe in that (you know, those who need to read the manual before the book) but you, I'm starting to think you only take arguments of anyone who seems to be against Christianity...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: August 10 2010 at 17:10 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^^ "religion is false" ... that's not a statement that I would support, and neither is "atheism is true". |
Whatever it is you do then... if not false then what? What is it you are attempting to do here if not show that faith in a religion is a false faith. I may be misunderstanding or misinterpretting or even projecting to some extent, but at the end of the day you are not saying that religion is true or atheism is false. If it is flawed then it cannot be true and if it is not true it must be false.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
The difference between Theism and Deism is that Theism makes claims about the natural world. Theists are not only saying that there is a God in the supernatural sense, which by definition is an unfalsifiable claim, they are saying that not only this God interacts with the natural world, but also that they know how he does that, and what he wants us to do. That makes their position vulnerable to logical arguments. Their way of evading this problem is usually simple ignoring the arguments, or - over the course of centuries - slowly changing their position and moving it into the supernatural realm, until it essentially becomes Deism. |
Both make supernatural claims about the natural world that cannot be proven using science.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
One direct example is early Christianity: Jesus' followers were expecting a new kingdom, as predicted by Jesus (he selected 12 f because there were twelve tribes, and each disciple would reign over a tribe in this new kingdom). Then Jesus died, eventually the disciples died, and Christians had to change their interpretation of this new kingdom. Eventually they moved it into the afterlife, and thus completely into the supernatural realm. An ingenious idea IMO, since that meant that people did not have to make up excuses anymore for why the predicted kingdom never arrived. They started out with a concrete claim about the physical world and ended up with a claim that's entirely supernatural. It's the same with the question of whether Jesus was human or a divine entity: In the end they simply said that he was both at the same time - issue solved.
EDIT: changed "apostles" to "disciples", in order to avoid confusion (apparently the term "apostle" is ambiguous here) |
Not sure why you've brought up this in response to what I wrote considering that I've already stated concerning this book (being a work of fiction, being based on the religion and not the other way around, that proving the book to be flawed only proves that the book is flawed, etc etc.). The whole story is supernatural - from inception to resurrection.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
IMO it's things like this which make it obvious that Christianity was a flawed concept to begin with. I also think that all these inconsistencies and oddities about the tenets of Christianity can serve as pretty conclusive historical evidence with the obvious conclusion that the whole thing is highly likely to be as false as all the other religions we all, Atheists and religious people alike, today accept to be false. Theists who disagree have not yet managed to explain to me how they can get around those universally agreed upon problems, short of simply ignoring them.
|
Oh, right, that kind of false - the highly likely kind. Well in scientific terms that's asymptotic and as close as you'll ever get I'm afraid.
|
|
What?
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: August 11 2010 at 01:34 |
jampa17 wrote:
Come on Mike, you can't make the fool with me. You know that I have read gnostic gospel, or scriptures and I have studiing many of those issues and that you can't bought me with that. I don't know about early Christianity then? hmmm... Did you know that the gospels were written ACCORDING to the Apostles. It was ACCORDING to them because they teach someone else (that actually knows how to write) to make those scriptures? You know that most of the gnostic tales are more fantasy tales, you know, like everywhere in history, fake stories that were told from one generation to another and somewhere in the middle were handed down to words. That's why it takes so long, because during those days, the different Christian communities were too far and they didn't have, like the guy on the video said: Internet, they don't even have phones, or telegraph? That's why the letters of the authorities, those who recieved the teaching of the apostles directly, sended to them and you can find many letters adressing missinterpretations of the word of Jesus and fake ideas, the archives are there and you can search for them. When Christianity became that big and official in the Roman Empire, then it was needed a clean up of all this made up ideas and that's when the authorities, again, faithful to the core of the teaching choose, after and intense search through the scriptures, the more according to the faith.
There is plenty information about it Mike, is not that you with your simplistic answer will take me down... |
1. The apostles/disciples were most likely illiterate peasants. 2. The gospels were written by highly literate people from countries far away from where the apostles had lived, and decades after the apostles/disciples had died. Those things are obvious and not really contested among scholars. What follows from that is that the stories and reports of what Jesus and his followers said and did that finally became part of the gospels were the result of several rounds of mouth to mouth communication ( telephone game). Since, like I already said and is also universally agreed upon, most people who took part in these communication chain were both illiterate and at the same time highly motivated to convert others to the faith, of course the stories were exaggerated here and there, especially the miraculous ones. My question to you: Do you contest any of what I said here?
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - August 11 2010 at 01:43
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: August 11 2010 at 01:50 |
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^^ "religion is false" ... that's not a statement that I would support, and neither is "atheism is true". |
Whatever it is you do then... if not false then what? What is it you are attempting to do here if not show that faith in a religion is a false faith. I may be misunderstanding or misinterpretting or even projecting to some extent, but at the end of the day you are not saying that religion is true or atheism is false. If it is flawed then it cannot be true and if it is not true it must be false.
|
I simply wouldn't put it like that. I would agree that Theism is false in that it is simply not a defensible position logically, but once you reduce it to the Deistic part it becomes unfalsifiable and therefore neither right nor wrong. Similarly, many Atheists make the positive claim that there is no God, which I would also call "false". I simply think that those statements are too generic.
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
The difference between Theism and Deism is that Theism makes claims about the natural world. Theists are not only saying that there is a God in the supernatural sense, which by definition is an unfalsifiable claim, they are saying that not only this God interacts with the natural world, but also that they know how he does that, and what he wants us to do. That makes their position vulnerable to logical arguments. Their way of evading this problem is usually simple ignoring the arguments, or - over the course of centuries - slowly changing their position and moving it into the supernatural realm, until it essentially becomes Deism. |
Both make supernatural claims about the natural world that cannot be proven using science.
|
The claims that Deists make don't interfere with the laws of the natural world. It's therefore irrelevant whether they are falsifiable or not, since they are of no consequence for us.
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
IMO it's things like this which make it obvious that Christianity was a flawed concept to begin with. I also think that all these inconsistencies and oddities about the tenets of Christianity can serve as pretty conclusive historical evidence with the obvious conclusion that the whole thing is highly likely to be as false as all the other religions we all, Atheists and religious people alike, today accept to be false. Theists who disagree have not yet managed to explain to me how they can get around those universally agreed upon problems, short of simply ignoring them.
|
Oh, right, that kind of false - the highly likely kind. Well in scientific terms that's asymptotic and as close as you'll ever get I'm afraid. |
You can't apply "hard science" to these historical questions - not unless we invent the technology of time travel. Until we do, we'll have to make do with probability assessments.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: August 11 2010 at 02:33 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
1. The apostles/disciples were most likely illiterate peasants. |
Off the top of my head - Matthew was a tax collector and possibly literate. Paul was a pharasee and certainly literate, Luke was a doctor and probably literate, John was a fisherman and possibly three different people because his writing style changes, that could be explained because it was "improving" as he became more literate - Peter was a fisherman and never wrote anything though it is possible that much of what Luke wrote were the spoken words of Peter.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
2. The gospels were written by highly literate people from countries far away from where the apostles had lived, and decades after the apostles/disciples had died.
|
The books that are in the NT are probably based upon or derived from less literate earlier writtings (the Jewish-Christian Gospels). For example the (lost) Hebrew Gospel is thought to be written by Matthew in Hebrew in 60CE and soon translated into Greek. That's not completely surprising that the compositors of the NT would use the later more literate instead of the earlier ones. If you were to compose a bible of C and Unix you would mention Kernighan and Richie's original text and draw from it, but it is unlikely that you would include it.
|
|
What?
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: August 11 2010 at 03:20 |
|
Jampa et al: True or false- ANY and I mean ANY argument Mr PF comes up with to the effect that religion is false will be rejected by you. Honest answer please.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: August 11 2010 at 03:31 |
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
1. The apostles/disciples were most likely illiterate peasants. |
Off the top of my head - Matthew was a tax collector and possibly literate. Paul was a pharasee and certainly literate, Luke was a doctor and probably literate, John was a fisherman and possibly three different people because his writing style changes, that could be explained because it was "improving" as he became more literate - Peter was a fisherman and never wrote anything though it is possible that much of what Luke wrote were the spoken words of Peter. |
Paul was not a disciple (I mentioned the ambiguity of the words disciple and apostle in this context), and as I recall from Ehrman's book it is universally agreed that he never met Jesus in person. He might have met some of the disciples in person, but the documents are not consistent on that. Paul was surely literate, and most of Paul's letters are certainly authentic in that Paul wrote them himself, in Greek. As far as the disciples are concerned: Some may have been literate in that they could read Aramaic. Back in those days people were considered to be literate even when they could just read, but not write. In order to have written any of the books of the new testament, they would not only have to have been able to write, but also in a foreign language (Greek). I think that this is very unlikely. Also, most of the books of the new testament can be dated to the end of the first century (like 70+ C.E.), again making it very unlikely that they were written by any of the disciples, or generally by eyewitnesses.
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
2. The gospels were written by highly literate people from countries far away from where the apostles had lived, and decades after the apostles/disciples had died.
|
The books that are in the NT are probably based upon or derived from less literate earlier writtings (the Jewish-Christian Gospels). For example the (lost) Hebrew Gospel is thought to be written by Matthew in Hebrew in 60CE and soon translated into Greek. That's not completely surprising that the compositors of the NT would use the later more literate instead of the earlier ones. If you were to compose a bible of C and Unix you would mention Kernighan and Richie's original text and draw from it, but it is unlikely that you would include it.
|
Of course the four canonical gospels had sources from which the authors copied heavily, sometimes also including comments to that effect (albeit indirect).
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: August 11 2010 at 04:22 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
1. The apostles/disciples were most likely illiterate peasants. |
Off the top of my head - Matthew was a tax collector and possibly literate. Paul was a pharasee and certainly literate, Luke was a doctor and probably literate, John was a fisherman and possibly three different people because his writing style changes, that could be explained because it was "improving" as he became more literate - Peter was a fisherman and never wrote anything though it is possible that much of what Luke wrote were the spoken words of Peter.
|
Paul was not a disciple (I mentioned the ambiguity of the words disciple and apostle in this context), and as I recall from Ehrman's book it is universally agreed that he never met Jesus in person. He might have met some of the disciples in person, but the documents are not consistent on that. Paul was surely literate, and most of Paul's letters are certainly authentic in that Paul wrote them himself, in Greek. As far as the disciples are concerned: Some may have been literate in that they could read Aramaic. Back in those days people were considered to be literate even when they could just read, but not write. In order to have written any of the books of the new testament, they would not only have to have been able to write, but also in a foreign language (Greek). I think that this is very unlikely. Also, most of the books of the new testament can be dated to the end of the first century (like 70+ C.E.), again making it very unlikely that they were written by any of the disciples, or generally by eyewitnesses.
|
 Paul was an apostle and you said "The apostles/disciples were most likely illiterate peasants"
Also, Paul met some of the other disciples - Peter, Barnabus and James, as mentioned in Acts (Luke) and his own writtings.
|
|
What?
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: August 11 2010 at 06:31 |
Dean wrote:
Now seeing the christian reaction to their campaigning to get Govt money for christian schools and seeing their tax-money going to subsidise jewish, muslim and hindu schools is more interesting.
|
I wouldn't have a problem with this idea, or with this:
Seems quite reasonable. I see that Dawkins will be discussing the issue of faith schools in a forthcoming BBC programme (BBC 3 or 4, within the next week or so?). Now that I will watch with interest.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: August 11 2010 at 08:04 |
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
1. The apostles/disciples were most likely illiterate peasants. |
Off the top of my head - Matthew was a tax collector and possibly literate. Paul was a pharasee and certainly literate, Luke was a doctor and probably literate, John was a fisherman and possibly three different people because his writing style changes, that could be explained because it was "improving" as he became more literate - Peter was a fisherman and never wrote anything though it is possible that much of what Luke wrote were the spoken words of Peter.
|
Paul was not a disciple (I mentioned the ambiguity of the words disciple and apostle in this context), and as I recall from Ehrman's book it is universally agreed that he never met Jesus in person. He might have met some of the disciples in person, but the documents are not consistent on that. Paul was surely literate, and most of Paul's letters are certainly authentic in that Paul wrote them himself, in Greek. As far as the disciples are concerned: Some may have been literate in that they could read Aramaic. Back in those days people were considered to be literate even when they could just read, but not write. In order to have written any of the books of the new testament, they would not only have to have been able to write, but also in a foreign language (Greek). I think that this is very unlikely. Also, most of the books of the new testament can be dated to the end of the first century (like 70+ C.E.), again making it very unlikely that they were written by any of the disciples, or generally by eyewitnesses.
|
Paul was an apostle and you said "The apostles/disciples were most likely illiterate peasants"
Also, Paul met some of the other disciples - Peter, Barnabus and James, as mentioned in Acts (Luke) and his own writtings.
|
^ Ehrman discusses this in detail in Jesus, Interrupted ... Acts contradicts the other books on major issues, and not all of Paul's letters that made it into the canon are today universally accepted as having actually been written by Paul. I won't deny that Paul may have met some of the actual disciples, who knew Jesus personally, but the documents vary on when that happened.
I guess you agree that Paul was not one of the twelve disciples. He was an apostle, but sometimes the twelve disciples are also being referred to as apostles - that's why I said "apostles/disciples". I'll just use "disciples" in future posts when I'm referring to one of the twelve.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: August 11 2010 at 08:40 |
|
^ even that is not straight forward, because after Judas's suicide Mattaius was elected to be the 12th disciple.
|
|
What?
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: August 11 2010 at 09:54 |
|
^ A) does that matter for what I said and b) is there a consensus on that? The Bible is also inconsistent on the circumstances of Judas' death, for that matter.
|
|
TGM: Orb
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 21 2007
Location: n/a
Status: Offline
Points: 8052
|
Posted: August 11 2010 at 10:07 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
The difference between Theism and Deism is that Theism makes claims about the natural world. Theists are not only saying that there is a God in the supernatural sense, which by definition is an unfalsifiable claim, they are saying that not only this God interacts with the natural world, but also that they know how he does that, and what he wants us to do. That makes their position vulnerable to logical arguments. Their way of evading this problem is usually simple ignoring the arguments, or - over the course of centuries - slowly changing their position and moving it into the supernatural realm, until it essentially becomes Deism. |
Both make supernatural claims about the natural world that cannot be proven using science.
|
The claims that Deists make don't interfere with the laws of the natural world. It's therefore irrelevant whether they are falsifiable or not, since they are of no consequence for us.
|
I don't buy this. Wouldn't the existence of an omniscient god who did not 'interfere with the laws of the natural world' radically impact on the nature of existence? (i.e. if everything that has ever happened, been said or been thought is observed and remembered by something, then I think that changes our lives on an absolutely fundamental level)
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?